Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Anon IP Contributions without discussion

Over the past few days a couple of anon IPs have made a large number of contributions to the article without discussing here at the talk page. For instance, someone just dramatically expanded the "influenced" list in the infobox (although in this case its clear that they were all influenced by Rand). Is there any way that we could try and get them to engage on the talk page before making changes?

Timestamping for bot, no comment. Skomorokh 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I raised it at Arbcom enforcement but aside from Skomorokh opposing (which seems contrarian) nothing has happened yet. --Snowded (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it! Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Ayn_Rand Karbinski (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made the link, thanks for doing that. --Snowded (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Truncate Philosophy Section and subsequent view sections

Everything below the first paragraph until we hit Criticism goes. There are a number of articles detailing Ayn Rand's views - the removal of the duplication dicernably decreases the articles load time. Karbinski (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with truncating the philosophy section; it is not at all accessible for a biographical article and there are better articles to exposit this information in. A selective merge might make more sense than straightforward removal, however. As for the political and social views – I think the topic is given undue weight here but it's well referenced (i.e. discussed in secondary literature) and there is no obvious merge target; removing it from the encyclopaedia entirely is inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals. Skomorokh 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The point that the material has no obvious merge targets is well-taken. I'm going to boldly try again. Karbinski (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a very important issue here which I think needs input from a number of editors. Certainly there's too much duplication in Rand-related Wikipedia articles. In addition to Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand), there are several sub-articles on her philosophical views. I started checking, and haven't yet finished, but it looks like the way in which Rand's philosophy is spread over several articles is absolutely unique on Wikipedia, and I think it's time either to justify the approach or to change it. Anyone can start going through a list of the most famous philosophers, from Plato to Kant to Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Their philosophy is dealt with in the main, parent article. Certainly, philosophical schools have separate articles - so you'll read about Sartre's philosophy at Sartre as well as at Existentialism. But no philosopher - however significant - has separate pages devoted to their work in metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc.

I think we need to address this before moving material into those sub-articles. I don't have a strong feeling whether Rand's philosophical should be here or at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), but I do not think it should be in half a dozen different places. (This is not to object to Karbinski's initiative, but just to broaden the issue).KD Tries Again (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Why would the philosophy section go, but the criticism of it stay? Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is substantial duplication and there are a plethora of articles as KD says. Personally I have increasingly come to the opinion that we need to separate Ayn Rand the person from Objectivism the philosophy. The conflation of the two is part of the problem(s) here. On Objectivism (Ayn Rand) at the moment we have criticism of Ayn Rand's view of Native Americans been used to criticise Objectivism with no statements as to any logical connection between those views, or indications that Objectivism inherently holds that position. I'd suggest that this needs to be an article about Ayn Rand the person, which obviously includes reference to her legacy, not Objectivism the Philosophy. Equally that would mean Objectivism (Ayn Rand) while honouring its origins should focus on Objectivism as expounded by its philosophical adherents. Criticism of the philosophy thus goes to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and is not here, criticism of Ayn Rand as a person, as a writer etc. belong here not on that page. Agreement to something along those lines (and possibly some central place to discuss and record such agreements) might help considerably. What do people think? --Snowded (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I worry that sometimes when there are separate articles for things that content appropriate to the main article is spun off completely. I would like to see a clear summary of the key bits kept here in addition to a link to the separate article. But generally speaking I have no objection to better focusing this article to her biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just seeing snowded say "Objectivism the Philosophy" makes me hopeful of a breakthrough. I generally agree (for once) with snowded. Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) are two different topics. My only concern would be, at some point in the ayn rand article, we have to address that she founded objectivism the philosophy. just a sentance or two, maybe a link to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). and get rid of all the anti-rand philosophy on the ayn rand page and put it on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). further consolidating the several sub-articles on her philosophical views intoObjectivism (Ayn Rand) i would also support.Brushcherry (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry Brushcherry (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I have always felt that saying she founded a school of philosophy is the way out of the problem and have not questioned that Objectivism is a philosophy (although objectivism does not equal post-Rand Objectivism). Other than that in full agreement with the consolidation you suggest BushCherry. --Snowded (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ohhhh...we are so close. she founded a school of philosophy. objectivism is a philosophy. would it kill you to say she is a philosopher? say what you want about that philosophy at Objectivism (Ayn Rand). i find objectivism simplistic and at best "pop" philosophyBrushcherry (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

At the moment we are not talking about whether it is proper to call her a philosopher or not, that is a wider discussion that relates to the nature of evidence, once the question of principle is resolved, the question of her status follows. For the moment I think we are trying to get the rest of the article stable and balanced. --Snowded (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as what we keep here, we don't need to remove the content completely, but just keep a brief stub summarizing her views and linking to the main article. Idag (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be approaching a consensus. My question: If I think of Rand's philosophy at all, I think of those "axioms" like "existence exists". Would they go to Objectivism or would they stay here (in truncated form)? I think the answer to that question will give us guidance on where the material from the superfluous metaphysics and epistemology pages should be merged.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'll put my edits to the subsequent sections on hold for now, I don't want to try and accomplish three things at once as the Wiki "process" is unfriendly to that approach. However, based on the above I'll truncate the Philosophy section to its opening paragraph - its not the worst summary I know of (that was funny right?) - it can be improved, and needs to tie in the article detailing her views on the history of philosophy. Karbinski (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@ChildofMidnight

The criticism section isn't co-dependant on the detailed content being truncated from the Philosophy section. Karbinski (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded - criticism section

Inclusion of material in criticism sections of an encyclopedia article ought to require that the material honors the reader with a fully stated criticism, not just report that someone has been criticized. If I say (or published) "I have been critical of and criticized Ayn Rand's philosophy," that utterance itself contains no criticism of Ayn Rand. If the statement is true, I should be able to state the criticism or criticisms. Karbinski (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@All - place to discuss article consolidation

Isn't there a "Project" concept on Wikipedia? I know there was an Objectivism project at some point, but it was dead a while ago. Can we create a new project: Ayn Rand, her views, and Objectivism? Karbinski (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If that means dealing with the whole set of Rand/Objectivism articles in a consistent way, it might be a good idea.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I don't know...maybe we could get one page right (ayn rand) before we take on the whole ayn rand universe of pages. we are nearing consensus on this page. let's just work on that for now. plus, all those other pages including Objectivism (Ayn Rand) have their own sets of interested editors, although there may be some crossover. they probably don't want all the stuff that i don't want on this page on their page. The consensus that i think we are approaching...is that the ayn rand page should be biographical, not a pro or anti objectivism forum.Brushcherry (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I don't disagree with what you're saying about the Ayn Rand page; I just want to express caution about moving material to pages like Objectivist Metaphysics or Objectivist Epistemology, which I think are highly problematic articles. If the consensus is to concentrate the philosophical material in Objectivism (Ayn Rand), then I have no objection.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My point would be that the pro and con objectivism sections be moved to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and the ayn rand page be biographical (which would include, in my opinion, that she founded a philosophical movement, objectivism is a philosophey, hence she is a philosopher..but i'm keeping an open mind since i think we are getting somewhere). but i realize the editors at Objectivism (Ayn Rand) might not want all our garbage dumped on them. not to mention the myriad of ayn rand related articles. i am just saying that we, editors of this page, can decide that the ayn rand page is biographical, not a forum for cheerleading or trashing ayn rand.Brushcherry (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I've been following this discussion with interest. The view I expressed on Wales' talk page was that the coverage of philosophers in Wikipedia should roughly reflect their prominence in any standard reference work. However when I did a word count in Wikipedia it turns out that the standard order of things is reversed in Wikipedia. For example, Rand scores higher than Aristotle (though hardly mentioned in most reference works). But there were howls of protest at this. The argument was the 'inclusionist' one that the problem of balance would be ironed out by adding to the articles on Aristotle, not subtracting from those on Rand. Some administrator claimed that Aristotle was overrated anyway at which point I lost my temper as usual and nearly got banned. This is why I am trying to stay away. Peter Damian (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

i don't see word count or article length or number of articles as a reflection of prominence, just the number of editors who have nothing better to do. Aristotle has been around for 2+ thousand years. i don't think there is much controversy about him left anymore. ayn rand is controversal, so more editors debate her status, create new pages such as Objectivist Epistemology and so on. if ayn rand is only 1% as important as aristotle, should she only be mentioned 1% of aristotle references? what is the word count on britney spears or madonna? are they more important than aristotle? i don't think you need to add anything to the aristotle page to "balance" the two articles. its not a competetion.Brushcherry (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I forgot to mention the argument just given here, namely 'this is the way that Wikipedia is'. I agree, but is that the way a reference work used globally and accepted as authoritative ought to be? Sure there is much more here about Britney Spears than Aristotle. But is that what an reference source ought to be? Exactly. Peter Damian (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Volume of coverage has nothing to do with importance, even after being distilled for the purpose of reporting an authoritative summary. (umm, global? - what does easy access have to do with anything?) Its important to note that you are not an authority on what is important for people to know about - and *ought* not be given the power to censor (based on word count or anything else). Karbinski (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy, there's no need to throw around words like "censor" and question editors. I agree with your point, contra Peter Damian, that having a larger number of articles does not give larger prominence; Wiki is not paper and as long as articles are neutral, verified and concern encylopaedic topics, they are welcome. What would be undue weight is if material on Objectivism was included prominently in core philosophy articles, as has been attempted in the past with articles like Philosophy, I think we are all broadly on the same page here: there is overlap of content on Objectivist philosophy on Wikipedia, and one of the ways of addressing that is to move content out of this article and into others. The IP editor 160 seems to be in the process of adding the relevant content from here to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), so I suggest we let that process finish and then proceed with the truncation; we don't want to remove quality coverage of Objectivism here while retaining inferior content in the other articles. Skomorokh 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This raises an issue. The sections under "Political and Social Views" are biographical, and at the same time not unrelated to her philosophy. The Objectivism article could benefit from having some of these concretes *integrated* (not "grafted-on" via cut-and-paste), and at the same time are relevant in this article. One possibility is for the Objectivism article to return the favor of having a tie-in to this article for Ayn Rand's concrete views. Of course, this article should be integrated within a biographical context, and Objectivism within the context of a system of philosophy. Karbinski (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible, though the views of other Objectivists than Rand should factor in over there also; for instance, the support of Yaron Brook and company for Israel as an extension of their philosophy. Skomorokh 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have sufficient consensus to proceed for the time being, but it's surely detrimental to the integrity of the project as a whole if Rand gets uniquely privileged coverage. If we can just bring the coverage more or less in line with the coverage of other major philosophers, it will be a step in the right direction.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think the "political and social views" are problematic for this new consensus formed "biographical" ayn page we are attempting. "political and social views" could loosley be translated as "philosohy". i haven't gotten very far (or anywhere)in convincing anyone that she should be referred to as a philosopher. we are having a long discusion about how she should be treated relative other philosophers, how her philosophy should be consolidated, etc. the talk box says she is a writer. any attempt to add philosopher to that has led to edit wars. why not compare the ayn page to judy blume or james joyce? what are sue grafton's views on homosexuality? although this keeps getting shot down, i'd suggest a paragraph or two commenting on the controversal nature of the philosophy she developed and link to Objectivism: Ayn Rand. There, the interested reader can learn all they want about it. the average person who just read The Fountainhead and wants to learn more about the author would be satisfied with this page. "political and social views" are, in my opinion, a back door for pro and anti rand editors to go at it.Brushcherry (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

The prominence of having sub-sections is very much undue weight. But lets not loose sight of the fact she was a radical, and her ideas still are radical for the world over. That she was a radical is eminently biographical. I would suggest ditching the subsections, re-naming the header, and having some paragraphs. Karbinski (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, as a criteria of exclusion, and NOT inclusion, I think that if a contributing editor can't be bothered or is unable to integrate a fact into the weave of the article then we can presume the addition isn't important enough to disrupt the prose. What I'm after here is the one-liners and two-sentence paragraphs that jab in a fact as they do nothing good for the article - no matter that they are true. Karbinski (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Prometheus Award

Recent addition with 1987 reference to an award is not backed up on Prometheus Award, it needs deleting --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Fame awards are listed lower on the page. Although this little fact might have a better home in the Anthem article, I added a reference. Karbinski (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the institution granting the award is. Skomorokh 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

When did she start smoking, and when did she stop? It is very relevant to her life, particularly because she contracted lung cancer, which she almost certainly never would have had she never smoked. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets say you knew the answer, she started on day x, quit on day y. How is this biographically relevant? Whatever the links are between long-term smoking and lung cancer, they belong under physical science topics, not biographies - well, perhaps if the subject was a participant in relevant studies that published individual results. Karbinski (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Explaining away

This diff is a POV addition, seeking to reduce the impact of a negative review. --Snowded (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Chambers does not imply that Rand supports the same system as the Nazis--he implies that her philosophy would ultimately wind up in the same place. This addition is very POV and very SYNTHy and should go. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit; the Nazi element was synthetic, the "flight from totalitarianism" non-neutral. That said, the coverage of the Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged here is wildly disproportionate, making up one third of the section on literary criticism of Rand. I'm sure we can do better than someone who apparently didn't bother to read the novel. Skomorokh 10:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chambers review is so out of left field in comparison to the book he was supposedly reviewing, if someone actually reads AS and has the intelligence to grasp what she said, when they see what a complete load the Chambers screed is, surely it can only help discredit her critics. I imagine many have the "who is this idiot?" reaction you and I did.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys -- no offense, please, but as interesting as all of this stuff is, the talk page is not a chat forum for whether we liked or didn't like the Chambers review. All of that personal opinion is irrelevant for editing on Wikipedia. If anyone wants to chat about Rand-related subjects, obviously there are a lot of great chat fora out there. J Readings (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point - it's quite relevant to the article. I'm all for mentions of the Chambers review being included along with commentary about it.Docsavage20 (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The desire to minimize every criticism of Rand with "commentary" is utterly unnecessary. The article is about Rand. The criticisms are about Rand. The "commentary" would be about the criticisms, and therefore not primarily about Rand. Therefore, the commentary does not belong here. Balance is provided not by criticizing those that dislike Rand, but by providing the perspective of those that admire her. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And we see exactly where your take on things got you re: this article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim that Chambers didn't read the novel is a classic Randite line, and unless I've never seen any evidence to support it. Chambers' critique of Atlas Shrugged remains one of the most famous and, in my opinion, the most devastating. That was the review that essentially read Ayn Rand out of the American conservative movement, so having a large portion of the literary criticism section devoted to it is not out of line, in my opinion. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Objectivists question whether Chambers read the book because of its ludicrously antithetical appraisal, reflecting no comprehension of what she wrote. Amazing given he was a converted commie. It's so off the mark it makes me suspect he was paid off to intentionally write it that way. My own thought upon reading it the first time knowing nothing about him other than that review which I found by chance was "WTH?...did this guy actually read the book?" It's a baseless hatchet job, but devastating? Hardly. It would only influence those too weak-minded to read and comprehend for themselves. I imagine Rand's works today easily outsell those of Chambers who's largely famous for writing a crap review.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to your opinion of the review. However, the effects of it WERE devastating to the Objectivist movement. This was William F. Buckley's eviction notice to Ayn Rand. It kicked her out of the mainstream of the conservative movement, and relegated her and hers to the fringe of the Right. Ultimately this remains one of the most famous critical reviews of Rand's work. Frankly this is the only article I've seen where there is an insistence that notable criticism of its subject must itself be criticized. It's ludicrous, it's POV, and it needs to stop. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am entitled, and the entitlement isn't yours to grant. Sure it's well-known, it's also utter nonsense. Eviction notice by Buckley? So you lend credence to the notion that it was an intentional hack job concocted without regard for facts, which its substance - such as it is - points to anyway. I imagine Rand was too busy watching her novel become the second most read book of all time to worry too much about Buckley's ire. And I don't think you can evict someone who doesn't want to live in the house.Docsavage20 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for "the second most read book of all time"? As to the above exchange, the review is a review, it had an impact the explanations for it smack of OR or apologia or both. --Snowded (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have reversed it Skomorokh, but we have a type of edit warring going on. You have not been reversed but instead a host of "explanations" have been placed. The criticism of Ayn Rand must be because the reviewer was a soviet spy and other similar material. At the same time a criticism of her understanding of philosophy, by a philosopher is held to be refuted by a minor reference to liking for logic by Greenspan. Sections labelled "criticism" are meant to be criticism, not OR explanations, ad hominem attacks on the critics etc. I really don't understand how you (Skomorokh) can support this editor's refusal to discuss matters. --Snowded (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can discuss it rationally once you've stopped wildly misconstruing my very clear position on the IPs editing. Skomorokh 21:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I wonder if selectively adding gratuitous information to the critics of Ayn Rand's novels constitutes a coatrack? I read and re-read that essay, but I'm still not sure if it would be. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, as far as I can see from the arbitration page you and one other editor are arguing that our IP should not be sanctioned in any way for his or her refusal to discuss things on the talk page while they carry on editing. I left it alone until the first incident of edit warring before I reported it. We now have a second incident and other marginal edits. The effect of your comments on the enforcement page is to support the IPs refusal to talk so I don't see what is irrational about my comment above. --Snowded (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets look for balance. On the one hand we have some summary of literary crticism based on secondary source reporting on what the literary community had to say. Then, with equal prominence we have a editorial magazine with an article by a non-literary critic - sure he was an author, but it is certainly not balanced to put him shoulder to shoulder with the entire community of critics. As well, he wasn't a literature critic nor is the National Review a reliable source for literary criticism. In fact, the source article is just a soap-box piece, where the mouth-piece mentions another author's book. This strictly POV entry is to be completeley removed. Karbinski (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The original review is [http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp here} and the National Review is surely notable within the context of american conservatism. The text makes it clear that the review illustrates that the right were split on Rand from early days. calling something a soap-box because you don't like it is hardly NPOV. In any event you should seek consensus before making a radical edit of this nature. --Snowded (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That the National Review is notable for providing editorial does nothing to address my argument. Removing POV content is not a radical edit. Karbinski (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It may not address your argument, but it does argue for inclusion of the material as a notable criticism. Its your opinion that it is POV, you do not have consensus for that position and you should revert while discussion takes place. --Snowded (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. The fact that the National Review has reprinted this article as part of their flashback series shows its notability. The current description is not POV, as it actually downplays some of the harsh language in the article. Idag (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this match up with Ayn Rand's biography (summary at that)? The case for inclusion of this content in the Atlas Shrugged article is much stronger, but this editorial is not NPOV alongside summaries for the entire literary community and critics who've published studies on Ayn Rand - as a matter of undue wieght. Karbinski (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include it in the Atlas Shrugged article, you should take this matter up w/ the folks who edit that article (adding it there does not mean removing it from here). As far as weight, the National Review clearly feels that this article is noteworthy, as evidenced by them focusing on it during their flashback series. We are attributing a similar weight to it in this article. Idag (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, it's important to Rand specifically (and not just Atlas Shrugged) because it was seen as Buckley reading her out of the conservative movement, casting her and hers into the Outer Darkness, where there is wailing, gnashing of teeth, and the John Birch Society. Or something like that. Regardless it helped ensure that she was always out of the mainstream of the American right. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

All this seems like a case for including Chambers in the Philosophy Criticism just above the literary section - and leaves my case that it doesn't belong in the literary section intact. The weight assigned an article by a commercial magazine is absolutely irrelevant to the weight of anything in an encyclopedic article: the former is primary source material, the latter is a report on a topic. Let me put it this way: "We must include Chambers! he was a major player in setting the tone of her reception by the mainstream American right" ==> lets, see, the literary criticism section? Karbinski (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski: The weight assigned an article by a commercial magazine is absolutely irrelevant to the weight of anything in an encyclopedic article. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you against citing commercial magazine articles on Wikipedia or just this article? If the latter, why? If that's not what you mean by "weight", then are you suggesting we trim the paragraph down to a sentence or two? I just want to clarify what you're saying. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Hmmm, the argument that it belongs somewhere other than literary criticism makes a degree of sense. However the article IS primarily a critical review of Atlas, and not Rand's philosophy in general, which is why I think it makes sense to have it in the literary criticism section. After all, we consider literary criticism from commercial newspapers. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The biographical notability is not as _literary criticism_. Alongside the other content in the section its a violation of NPOV, therefore as it IS within the article, its POV - and does not belong. I'm not even saying that its not a noteable criticism of Atlas Shrugged, only that a single criticism of Atlas Shrugged has no weight in this article _as a criticism of one of her books_. Nor am I really saying the content belongs in a different section, although there seems to be an opportunity to add some relevant and reliably sourced content about Rand and the Right. Karbinski (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think that criticism sections on the whole are inappropriate, and that critiques and reactions should simply be mixed into the article at relevant points. For instance, the review from Buckley's magazine could be put into the section on Atlas Shrugged (but still in the main Ayn Rand page). This practice is common in featured articles, for instance Edgar Allan Poe features unfavorable comments from several high profile literary figures and critics. In that spirit, I believe that it would be appropriate to include some other critical comments from high profile figures such as Hitchens, Chomsky, and others of similar status. CABlankenship (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski, your argument essentially boils down to "there is so much criticism of Ayn Rand, singling a single specific critic out would be undue weight." That's not the way Wikipedia works. Chambers is clearly a notable critic, as evidenced by the way he is treated by a major national magazine, and should therefore be included in the article. If you find other criticism that other major national magazines find significant, please feel free to add that as well. As far as where to add Chambers, since he's criticizing Rand's writing, he should be in the Literary Criticism section. Idag (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And I would add that this review appears to be highly notable, given the number and variety of books (about Rand, pro and anti, and also Conservatism, anti-communism etc) that reference it, calling it famous, influential, the worst, hostile, vicious depending on their perspective.[1], and including Rand's reported reaction to the review [2]. Since so many authors have chosen to single it out as important in her life and work, it seems very appropriate that it gets included here. --Slp1 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chambers is not notable as a critic. His review of Atlas Shrugged is highly notable. The argument boils down to content covering the literary criticism of Ayn Rand with secondary sources sharing prominence with a single instance of criticism on a single work of the author from a primary source. At least one of the secondary sources, without surprise, draws upon the primary source of Chamber's review. Karbinski (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'd be willing to consider having Chambers' review moved (perhaps to the Atlas Shrugged section? seems more natural to have it there anyway). However it has to be mentioned, and I think the current amount of weight is appropriate. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd oppose that unless we decide to merge all of the criticism sections into the article. Solely merging the Chambers review and maintaining a separate Criticism section would be confusing. Idag (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean moving all the content under literary criticism to the Atlas Shrugged article? Only the content concerning Chambers is focused on that single book. Karbinski (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean moving each part of the criticism section into its pertinent counterpart in the main article. Some criticisms would go into Atlas Shrugged, other criticisms would go into other places. However, while there exists a separate Criticism section, Chambers' criticism should not be relocated from it. Idag (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't we separate out the two tasks? One being the move of Chamber's criticism to Atlas Shrugged and one being a minor restructuring of this article. Otherwise, lets identify here where the rest of the content goes. Karbinski (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)\

This wouldn't be a simple minor restructuring. Try using the Sandbox to test out the changes and we can go from there. Idag (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If moving the Chambers content is proper, it should just be moved. Are you not in agreement that there is reason to move the Chambers content out? To be clear, I think in its current form its placement in literary criticism is against NPOV and it needs to go. I don't see this as contingent on not having a literary criticism section in the Ayn Rand article. Karbinski (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't made the case that its NPOV and appear to be in a minority of one in wanting it to go. It is a criticism of the book and its notable, therefore if there is a literary criticism section that is where it belongs. If the criticism sections are absorbed into the mainstream then that needs to be experimented with in the sandpit first. You can't realistically do it in two stages --Snowded (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, always with the "you haven't made the case," you never ever make a case, - I've made a case and I'm working it here, go complain to ArbCom would ya? Realistically I could do it right now in a matter of a minute or two - but I'm not for removing the literary criticism section. Karbinski (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the content again. My reasoning:

Chambers is not notable as a critic. His review of Atlas Shrugged is highly notable. The argument boils down to content covering the literary criticism of Ayn Rand with secondary sources sharing prominence with a single instance of criticism on a single work of the author from a primary source. At least one of the secondary sources, without surprise, draws upon the primary source of Chamber's review.

Then we can see if there is a concensus that this is a problem. First I'll add it to the [Atlas Shrugged article]. -- Karbinski (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the Chambers review belongs in the article but it's probably inevitable that anyone who explores Ayn Rand is going to encounter it. I don't think it should be something to hide from people. It was so "devastating" that it became her best selling work. The review's genuine role in the universe is as an example of a feeble, intellectually empty attack. This "famous" review that upon examination proves to be a bag of inert gas. All this noise about throwing her out of mainstream conservatism is ridiculous, might as well talk about throwing her out of the Catholic church.Docsavage20 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly that Chambers belongs in this article because of the impact his review had on Rand's place within the conservative movement. I strongly suggest that you self-revert. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TallNapoleon. Karbinski, so far you have been the only person to favor the removal of Chambers' criticism, and there is clearly no consensus for such a removal. Your removal of this criticism has already been reverted once, and I second TN's suggestion that you self-revert immediately. Idag (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with karbinskiBrushcherry (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

It seems as if semi-protection might be needed here. There will always be new waves of zealots pro and contra on this issue. The constructive attitude that was slowly building after the arb com decision is gone, and the article is once again turning into a contest to see which editors are the most fanatically devoted to the subject matter. CABlankenship (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

While I can sympathize with the frustration, good luck trying to get a semi-protection on this article. One would need to show that anon IP addresses were "willfully" being disruptive. So far, I can only see one or two clear (but minor) examples. Not enough to win a semi-protection. In my experience, it's difficult to achieve semi-protection unless one comes across such a blatantly obvious example of repeated disruption over an extended period of time that admins are forced to do something about it. It's almost a waste of time to file nowadays. The best thing to do is just try to take discussion to the talk page. Failing that, one can always be bold and revert with policy-oriented explanations at some point. If an edit war bubbles to the surface, walk away for a few days and come back to the sentence or paragraph or section or article later when things calm down a bit. Let's face it: that's the process on Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably won't help, but surely it's somewhat useful to figure out what the solution would be if this wasn't about Ayn Rand. From a random sampling, it's normal practice on Wikipedia to include criticism/reception sections in articles on controversial modern philosophers. It's not normal, on the other hand, to find summaries of pro/anti book reviews in Wikipedia articles on authors, even those who certainly have enemies. For Martin Amis, for example, you need to go to individual articles on novels to see what reviewers thought of them. You can find an analogy of the Rand dilemma at the George Orwell page - not surprisingly, as he was another writer whose novels advanced political views. The criticism section is an extensive back and forth of hurrays and boos. Personally, I don't think it works; but it does seek balance.

I think it's valid to argue that criticism of specific novels by Rand should go to the articles on those novels. If a criticism section is to be retained in the main article, then I think it's hard to exclude critical responses to negative reviews. As long as it's made explicit that response to Chambers is far from neutral, I think it's entitled to be cited where Chambers is cited. I do think a proliferation of non-neutral responses to Chambers is overkill. I am going to be bold and remove the repetitive citation. I respect the view that Chambers' stance has some meta-critical import with respect to Rand's position, but if so I think we need to find a source which explicitly says as much.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Oh dear. I restored the duplicative citation, because having said all that I have a problem with using Capitalist Magazine as a reliable source. "Capitalism Magazine is a private "for-profit" website owned by Bahamas 2000, Ltd. published. There is no charge to read the articles on the CapMag.com website; but, if you enjoy what you read feel free to piss off a communist and send a donation to support this website." There is no masthead, it has a PO Box address in the Bahamas, there is no way to tell that it isn't just a private blog, and there is no evidence that it has an editorial policy which would qualify it as a Wikipedia reliable source. Thoughts? Adding: Okay, it is a private blog run by a photographer called Mark da Cunha; I will remove it and keep the other cite for the time being.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

And what I did next is change the link in the Chambers citation so that it points to the review as published. It had previously pointed to a version of the review at some other website which was a corrupted text.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Tracinski may actually qualify as something of an expert on Rand, and therefore that piece may be valid as the self-published opinion of an expert, a la Vallicela. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's the test: "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It was a slam dunk with Vallicela because of his publication record. Tracinski has plenty of blog articles out there. Can anyone point to a relevant record with "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Obviously, his TIA articles don't count, because they're self-published. Real Clear Politics links to the TIA articles. I did a quick Google Book search, and I can only find one non self-published article (itself published by a marginally reliable source, I'd argue), and it's not about Rand.

I should have thought those who want to see an answer to Chambers in the article would want to come up with something better than a post on a Bahamian blog in any case.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Just a note, that Bahamian blog has syndicated notable libertarian authors such as Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder, to name a few. However I'll agree with you that Tracinski does not appear to rise to being a reliabel source--for some reason I had thought he was affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, and it turns out he is not. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

He worked for some Rand organization or other, but of course that's not the test. There is a whole interesting discussion to be held (elsewhere) about whether Wiki policies have evolved enough to deal with all these different kinds of blogs. And nothing against the Bahamas, of course.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

So how is the "Ayn Rand Biography" page coming along?

Still fighting about sources? my source is better than your source? your source isn't a source because it doesn't agree with me? Brushcherry (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

There are clearly many dedicated to smuggling in an anti-Rand agenda but as long as the essentials are presented - and I believe they are - the good guys win.Docsavage20 (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there are also editors who don't see it in terms of an old-fashioned Western movie.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"Brushcherry is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions". Now where did I read that? --Snowded (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Snowded (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and related articles (broadly construed) for three months. He is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions. Snowded is warned to avoid further edit-warring and other inappropriate conduct....now where did i read that?Brushcherry (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

The difference Brushcherry is the degree of compliance with the ruling. --Snowded (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park

I just happen to be reading an article entitled "Rand-o-Rama: Ayn Rand's long shelf life in American culture" featured in Reason (Pg. 25(3) Vol. 36 No. 10 ISSN: 0048-6906, March 1, 2005) when I came across this funny quote:

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again."--police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998)

I'm wondering if anyone would object to having it quoted in the Popular Interest and Influence section? J Readings (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be under the "smuggled criticisms" section? The words aren't those of the character, they're those of Parker and/or Stone - not notable as scholars, who take potshots without feeling compelled to back up what they say, unlike Tracinski who does - though that seems to be regarded as an unacceptable reference.Docsavage20 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I just note for the record that anti-Rand cites have recently been removed because, like the Tracinski cite, they don't meet community standards. If you want to change the standards, this isn't the page to do it.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You can note for the record that it's been observed that within Wikipedia "community standards" are inconsistently interpreted. The standards aren't particularly standard. Docsavage20 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

southpark is an acceptable reference but the the new york times is not? good gravy.Brushcherry (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry and Docsavage20 don't seem to understand what is being discussed. The quote originated from a third-party article published in Reason (magazine) on March 1, 2005. As the title suggests, the article traces Ayn Rand's legacy in popular culture with most of the examples in the article already presented in the "Popular Interest and Influence" section. I highlighted the South Park quote, not to denigrate Ayn Rand, but because it was the only one (with the notable exception of The Simpsons, let that pass for now) that was not mentioned in the article's section to date. Plus, as a bonus, I personally think that the South Park quote has its own typical punch, but that's neither here nor there. In response to Docsavage20's suggestion, there is no "anti-Rand" agenda at work. Indeed, for those truly paying attention, I removed last week the source iUniverse from the section entitled "Rand's work and academic philosophy" because it did not meet our reliable source standards and WP:SPS in particular. (iUniverse is a clear "vanity press" and therefore not allowed under the guidelines.)J Readings (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Though we'd probably have to censor out "shit." Idag (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We would not have to censor the word shit, because WP:Wikipedia is not censored. However, I am extremely opposed to including it in the popular culture section on the basis of the fact that popular culture sections, as a general rule, need to die in a fire. It would add nothing to the article of value. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it's not being offered as a source here; a source would be a third party reporting that those remarks were made on South Park. But no, we certainly don't need it in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I don't mean to crash the party, but aren't we trying to make this a serious scholarly article? That a character on a scatological television show made a funny remark strikes me as a little trivial to be added to an encyclopaedia entry. That said, it might have a place in the article on the novel, where its length is a theme worth a paragraph or two. See WP:TRIVIA. Skomorokh 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you just publicly insult South Park? I'm pretty sure you just did. (^_^) In any case, like it or not, the "Popular Interest and Influence" section is in the article. If the section remains, the South Park addition is perfectly valid. If, however, the real objection is to the entire section, that's a separate matter worth discussing. Otherwise, I see no reason why South Park should not be added. J Readings (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a great follower of American "culture" I'm afraid! ;) I don't object to a reference like "Atlas Shrugged has been ridiculed in shows such as South Park" – the fact that Reason thought it worthy of note is worth something – but the quote itself does not really inform the reader about the subject of this article: Rand. Skomorokh 00:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Libertarianism was added

It is important to note that many libertarians are under the illusion that Rand stood for their values, when in fact she despised them.

On her views on Libertarians in general: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

On the rivalry of Objectivism and Libertarianism: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/stottlemyer/Ayn_Rand_and_Murray_Rothbard_Cant_We_All_Just_Get_Along.shtml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stromberg4.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html —Precedingunsigned comment added by 208.120.238.185 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Libertarianism and Objectivism. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "libertarianism" reference from the lede as it incorrectly stated that Rand condemned libertarianism as a form of collectivism, wwhich it is not, and which, to my knowledge Rand never asserted. Her published reason for disapproving of libertarianism was (paraphrased) that she believed it disconnected political/economic beliefs similar to her own from any underlying moral principle. evildeathmath 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Were you under the impression that this was being kept a secret?Docsavage20 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it important, or is it another stick to beat her with? I thought we were thinking of trimming. My idea, doubtless utopian, is that we could achieve an accurate article of reasonable scope which isn't a soapbox for either side, and beat back the proliferation of sub-articles which merely duplicate the information. In any case, lewrockwell.com is a source which was challenged above, and not defended by anyone - I believe the cites to that blog have now been removed/replace.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's important to clarify that she didn't consider herself as friendly with Libertarians and why. She didn't take issue with Libertarians because she was anti-liberty, she demanded that its basis be defined. It's hardly a stick to beat her with, I imagine she'd be happy to have it stated in bold letters. Docsavage20 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in the race as to whether it's a good or bad thing to be friendly with Libertarians. I just wonder whether it rises to the level of encyclopaedia-importance, or is something specialists only get excited about?KD Tries Again (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I don't know if it's crucial that Libertarianism be mentioned at all but if her very early and brief association with Libertarianism is going to be mentioned, it's essential that it be made clear that she ultimately rejected it and why.Docsavage20 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Article trimming

The article stands at 116 kilobytes. This is entirely too long. We need to start discussing how and where to pare this down. The Sandbox could be good for this. Any thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of blatant POV that could be removed, the latest IP addition is blatant negative POV and should be removed ASAP. Her quote on the Arabs may be worthwhile, but it's not for us to say the statement is racist, or that Rand is one. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. There wasn't an actual supporting reference in any case, just number "74" in brackets; maybe the quote comes from reference 74? In any case, what would be required, if it were worth including, would be an actual reliable source describing the comment as racist. The last thing we need is Wikipedia editors making their own determinations as to whether Rand's remarks are racist, fascist or stupid (or indeed progressive,balanced and brilliant).KD Tries Again (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"We need to start discussing how and where to pare this down". Based on what, some arbitrary KB size? Or just personal bias? Is Wikipedia charging you by the line now? If I *were* being charged by the line, I would cut out the current Political/Social and Criticisms Sections which would also make it read more like a true biographical summary. I thought it wasn't necessary to synopsize all her books, and the topics under the Political & Social views section seem a bit arbitrary but it doesn't seem objectionably long - and the fact is one isn't obligated to read everything, maybe they didn't tell you that. Look at how much was said about that Chiff Chaff bird that was featured. Your motives are suspect to say the least given that your fixation on this article clearly isn't because you believe her ideas should be promoted, despite having not demonstrated a particularly astute grasp of them.Docsavage20 (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, you could just say that you disagree with the necessity to trim, without questioning the other editor's motives and intelligence. Editing this article would be a breeze if we could get past the notion that Rand needs to be promoted or the reverse. We have been making some progress recently, but the attitude that the talk page can be used to evaluate other editors rather than improve the article seems to be returning. As for your comment above on community standards on sources, my opinion is that they are inconsistently applied, badly drafted and out of date. But the only conceivable way of editing a controversial article like this is to seek to apply them even-handedly. Changing them is a subject for a different talk page.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

DocSavage, see WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:AGF, and please take note of the Arbcom decision, particularly the bits regarding the "hostile editing environment". Now, it is Wikipedia policy that articles above a certain length are to be avoided, for one reason because it means that mobile devices have serious problems displaying them. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide a general summary of their topic--that is to say, they should not be going in depth. It should, in other words, be significantly shorter than it is now. Rand's article is also considerably longer than that of many much more mainstream and, dare I say, important philosophers, which makes me concerned about WP:WEIGHT. As for my grasp of Ms. Rand's ideas, you would likely only say I "grasped" them if I agreed with them, and so I doubt there is anything whatsoever I could say that could convince you otherwise. However, we do not need to agree with each other on the value of Ms. Rand's ideas to work together on improving this article. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The last time this was raised, I proposed to split out the larger sections; no-one responded. I don't think outright deleting relevant and reliably sourced content is in the interest of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the article today, I didn't actually think there was much that should be trimmed. There's a biography, brief summaries of her big-sellers, and a summary of her political and social views. I entirely agree with TallNapoleon that the comparison between this article and articles on other writers and philosophers reflects undue weight, but the solution in many cases would be to bring the other articles up to scratch (if only Wikipedia could attract editors who could and would do the work...).KD Tries Again (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's also likely there's more that's known about her life than ancient philosophers due to technology. However, I notice the extensive references section seems to add a lot of length to the article, but would seem to be necessary. The argument about mobile devices seems silly. Maybe they should limit the length and quality of movies if not all mobile devices can play them back in HD and surround sound. Docsavage20 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Except it actually is a Wikipedia policy. If you edit the Ayn Rand page now you'll see the following message:

"This page is 116 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."

I think a great deal of the section on her legacy could be trimmed, and I think that listing her views on specific issues is largely unnecessary. A brief overview of her philosophy should be provided that links to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as a main article. Perhaps there is also room for some brief mention of certain controversial views she held that don't really qualify as part of Objectivism per se, for instance her belief that no rational woman would ever want to be President, that homosexuality is immoral, or that the Native Americans, in essence, had it coming. I'm not sure whether or not such a section would be a good thing. Much of her biography is also overdetailed, considering that this is supposed to provide a brief summary of her life. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)